I actually agree with this response. Because of Microsoft, Seattle has become Silicon Valley North, just the same as NYC has become the Silicon Alley and Chicago is... whatever they're calling Chicago now.
All of them are similar, heavy car usage, not enough walking, and no safety for humans.
Google is trying to solve it by making smarter cars. How about we solve it by making our communities smarter instead?
After decades living in real car-only cities (Atlanta, Miami, Sao Paulo), I'm glad to live car-free in NYC. And considering family and small child.
While gentrification continues to push people away from Manhattan, you still have decent options of public transportation to everywhere around here.
We can criticize NY for many things, but being a 'car city' is not one of them.
Anyway, I really wish more cities in the world could offer similar life style, allowing people to leave their cars behind and use public transportation. It would save lives, the environment, and increase everyone's happiness.
It would be nice if NYC laws were as friendly to pedestrians as public transport is. Most pedestrian deaths in NYC occur in cross walks where we have the right of way. The charges for a car running a person over in a cross walk can be as little as a $300 fine and are often not much more than that.
Underneath the sea of yellow cabs you have a very efficient subway system, connecting the entire city to its 5 boroughs. And you also have a decent railroad system, connecting Manhattan to nearby cities.
It's true that some areas are not properly served through subway, and you have to rely on bus. But it is still an order of magnitude better than some of the cities mentioned above.
Actually, self-driving cars are the only proposed solution to automobile accidents and related deaths that seems like it might work. Laws don't work, education doesn't work, and even the safest, most careful drivers can and do have accidents. Let's be clear. In the US, at least, cars are not going anywhere unless costs become as prohibitive everywhere as they are in NYC. Even then, they're still not going anywhere (NYC still has a ton of cars obviously). I have no idea what making communities smarter means. What exactly are you proposing?
Generally he means addressing the problems "heavy car usage, not enough walking, and no safety for humans". Optimizing city design for people, and not for vehicles. This is generally done by increasing density, and requiring mixed-use buildings with commerce on ground level, and more public spaces and wider side walks, and dedicated lanes for bikes and public transportation.
Cars aren't going anywhere anytime soon in the US because sadly you can't function without one in the vast majority of places. It's far easier to implement this design philosophy for a growing city[1], but really hard to change the layout of a mature one, though it can be done thoughtfully [2].
We call it the "Silicon Forest." I remember Redmond when it was still just a small town whose claim to fame was a TV production lot for Northern Exposure (I grew up in Bothell just north on 405).
That Boston managed to avoid this is a very big reason why I don't have much interest in living anywhere else. In Somerville and Cambridge, I feel exceptionally safe, even around cars.
Chicago here... it's anything than "car city". I haven't had a car in a decade. I'm not sure you've actually lived in any of these areas. It's possible to live without a car in only a few cities, and Chicago and NYC are two of them.
All of them are similar, heavy car usage, not enough walking, and no safety for humans.
Google is trying to solve it by making smarter cars. How about we solve it by making our communities smarter instead?